A server for the home, what's the best option?

Ok, this is of personal interest to me, as I have an old WHS 2003 server that I want to retire in favor of a more modern operating system.

That said, I think it would be very useful to have a general-purpose discussion on the various merits of home server solutions. i'm assuming windows-based options, but if there are compelling merits to other options, bring them up.

So the options I'm thinking of are WHS 2011, Windows 8, and Windows Server 2012 (Essentials?).

So what is everyone else planning on? What are the needs that make you lean the way you do?

I have an HPX510 running WHS v1. And it just works. Of course the software is old and lumpy, but it does what it's supposed to do. I have considered moving to WHS 2011 but I can see it being a real hassle for very few visible benefits. I think that the next step for me would be a Windows 8 box. Server 2012 seems really expensive for my situation, which is a business with 4 computers plus a whole heap of photo and video storage.But I think I'll get a few years out of our HP yet.

I'm using WHS2011 for my file server OS. Not making use of any of the Home Server feature stuff, it just downloads and serves files, locally and over http. The reason? It costs $50. I've seen it for as low as $40 more recently.

8 wasn't out when I built it, and any of the 2008 variants cost far more than I want to spend.

I've never had the need for full server capabilities but I've always liked the Synology NASes. I'm waiting for the WD RED prices to go down before picking up a DS1512+. Serving up movies, documents and images from a low powered central hub to the rest of my LAN is going to be nice. Not to mention it has a built-in ability to act as a VPN server that I can connect to if I'm on public WiFi.

I believe it is more expensive than building your own Home Server though.

My only complaint is that it cannot handle larger than 2 TB disks, otherwise I'm happy as it is. So therefore I looked into using a Windows 8 client for file storage, but keep backups and remote desktop on the WHS. But in the RTM it seems Storage Spaces using Parity (and possible even Two Way Mirror) is not as flexible as my WHS, so for now I will wait and see. I will not move my 10+ TB only to discover I have to rebuild the storage or add 5 HDs at a time to Windows 8 later, no thanks.

I have never had the need nor the interest in running a server at home.

Then why do you answer this question ???

Because I could. Even though I work in IT and have 35 years experience with PCs, I find it absurd that so many people waste their money buying technology looking for a reason to use it. Most home users have no reason for a server. They never perform full backups with offsite protection nor do they understand the best practices oh how and why to set up a server.

Because I could. Even though I work in IT and have 35 years experience with PCs, I find it absurd that so many people waste their money buying technology looking for a reason to use it. Most home users have no reason for a server. They never perform full backups with offsite protection nor do they understand the best practices oh how and why to set up a server.

This thread is for those who do have a reason to setup a server, don't need offsite protection, do understand best practices and know why and how to setup a server. So you still have no reason to post here.

Do you still have these requirements ? How much are you willing to invest ? What client to you run/intend to run ?

1) Is basic. EVERY solution will more or less provide this.2) Is a bit more tricky, in particular since the way WHS 2003 (and 2011) does it is pretty insecure. This brings the question: "what do you need it for" again: do you really need RDP or all you need is a remote control system ?3) Backups are, frankly, the most problematic. That is because version after version, backing up windows machine has become less usable, less effective, less flexible and less resilient. Win8 pretty much finish the job by taking (real) backups out of the system. Once you integrate that into your thinking, you'll realize that you'll need a backup solution of your own. I won't give you advises, to be honest, because there are commercial solutions available (all pretty bad, in my opinion) and several free solution (which all have their problems). Frankly, here, it depends on what you think is more fitting to your needs.

I need remote control because I have servers (and sometimes my desktop) I need to be able to access the UI of. RDP works like a charm via WHS.

WHS backups are brilliant for protecting from hard drive failure. I get a new HD, replace it, insert the WHS recovery CD and I am up and running within 30 minutes.

I have a friend whos children constantly end up messing up their laptops and for her WHS is a dream, she just pops in the CD and recovers a backup enough days back. Simple and quick.

If I mess up a web server upgrade, PHP install or whatever... there are always fresh backups to go back to. Regardless if it's an old XP, Vista or Windows 7.

As for file servers, having the WHS as file server also means very easy access to files from internet. I can download a DVD when I visit a friend, for example. I really think Microsoft has missed an opportunity the last few years to become the home hub with their failed WHS strategy. They could have done so much more with the platform, like what Google is hinting at with Nexus Q.

I have never had the need nor the interest in running a server at home.

Then why do you answer this question ???

Because I could. Even though I work in IT and have 35 years experience with PCs, I find it absurd that so many people waste their money buying technology looking for a reason to use it. Most home users have no reason for a server. They never perform full backups with offsite protection nor do they understand the best practices oh how and why to set up a server.

Well you're in the wrong thread, then. I have used a home server for years, and to great effect. Media storage, computer backup, that all works quite well with one. Granted, one of my former major uses of my home server, streaming videos, has gone down in recent years due to the proliferation of Netflix streaming, but it's still nice to have all my purchased media online without having to get a disc, or take a disc with me on my trips.

As to my needs:Mass file storage, preferably with support for hard drives over 3TB.Computer backupMedia streaming in my home networkRemote media streaming for when I'm travelingWindows Media Center support (preferable for the above, but not actually mandatory, due to other options).

I've been seriously looking at Windows 8, but their Storage Spaces don't seem as flexible as I would like, and I would have to figure out remote server access.

indeed, no need to go thread shitting just to wave your e-dick around. I've ran a home server for years specifically to backup my personal tower in case I bork it and to host media for my O-play.

Right now I'm using openmediavault to host my media files cause I was bored and looking for something to run as a VM and it works really well once I figured out how CIFS shares work in a linux environment. I used WHSv1 and WHS2011 for years and liked them both fine though 2011 definitely was less impressive to me.

The HP Media Smart series with the original WIndows Home Server wrecked this product for me, but not because it sucked. In fact, I mean the complete opposite.

WHS v1 is a bit long in the tooth, but it's still a really fine product. My server still does nightly backups for all my computers. It still archives files and streams media, including my recorded TV. And it does it all in a tiny, unobtrusive footprint.

So I keep waiting for something to come along that's unequivocally better, but nothing has. WHS 2011 was stillborn. Maybe it would have been appealing with nice hardware mated to it, but HP bowed out. I've toyed with the idea of building a new server for Server 2012 Essentials, but I'd have to build something. That means I run the risk of getting I setup I can't stand--too loud or some other issue--and I'm not sure what it would do that WHS v1 can't and that would really knock my socks off. Storage spaces look cool, but not life changing. I think the one thing that [i]would[/] rock my world would be a server that takes the place of MS for the backend of Skydrive. If my own server was on the other end of my Skydrive, that'd be sweet. I'd totally give MS a bunch of money for that. Gah, MS always seems so close to having the Holy Grail.

Alright, I don't mean to crap your thread, Happysin. Just my two cents. Part of me wants somebody to tell me how wrong I am and that there's actually something super awesome I'm missing.

Windows Server 2012 for sure, if you know how to admin it. It's the best option.

Frankly, I can't agree. It's a great OS, but it won't help him with either backing stuff up or setting up a RDP proxy (unless he's willing to shell out the $$$ for setting up a remote app portal).

At this point, I would instead select client-side solution for remote desktops (LogMeIn free, for instance) and backups (Cobian backup, acronis if you must) and use anything cheap for mass storage.

Another option (the one that I actually picked) is to install a hypservisor on your server and then install whatever OS works best. I'm running a Hyper-V server with Astaro Firewall (for VPNing in, proxying stuff, etc), a WHS 2011 (Because, like you, I loved the backup functionality), a Windows 2008R2 Standard server (As a personal test bed and jump target for RDP: Technet FTW). I wouldn't suggest this as the most practical option, but if you like to thinker with computers at home, it sure works well.

Beanaroo, you are not wrong. Thats the weird thing - that it was not generally recognized that WHS was A Good Thing, and the idea was not developed any more. Microsoft managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They will spend millions advertising Internet Explorer, which is essentially redundant and makes them no money anyway, but not promote or continue to develop a great idea. This has been discussed at length elsewhere in this very forum so lets not get too much into it. Technology has moved on, but it would seem that ease of use is the the issue. WHS worked right out of the (very small and quiet)box. Backups, restores, file sharing, remote access. As people have pointed out we could use W8, W2012 server, various NAS solutions. All more expensive and more hassle than they need to be.

indeed, no need to go thread shitting just to wave your e-dick around.

Yeah. Why is it people who are patently clueless about intermediate-upwards use of consumer technology always go on about "xx years in IT" (and are inevitably Mac users these days), I wonder. Well actually I know the reason but hey, flamewars are for elsewhere.

I still have a small bunch of WHS V1's (in HP X510 appliance form) floating around. I have a private cloud for work and some play and have VM's accessible remotely out in colos so the remote access part of the deal is useless to me, but the DLNA stuff, the centralised local machine backup (which is really handy since I often pull out spares of the same model of machines) & music/movie/crap storage are the main things relevant to me with WHS - and it does it really well, so they've supplanted everything I've tried as replacements.

The WHS's are basically local edges for my media and personal-file storage in the places I live and in a couple of cases, where I work. I sync all the media on my WHS's with a corner of my storage cluster which runs across my colos, and there's reasonably modern dual-Xeon's (which are also placed in different colos) that are now dedicated to running j.River Media Center and to transcoding & slinging the media out to the 'nets to j.River clients, which basically allows me to virtually carry my entire music and movie library on my laptops when I'm traveling about - and is also triple-redundant in the process. I guess you could say kind of a rich man's iTunes Match

I think I'll eventually end up going Essentials. Though in all honesty I could probably wait for WS2015 Essentials (if it's still around by then) unless there's some ginormous vulnerability that springs up with the WHSV1's. But it's just one of those things when it's all up and working and you're not missing anything major, you just think "why bother changing" - I mean, it was conceived as a storage appliance, so...

Yeah, no doubt that would be a great server. However, also rather over specified. In general I like over specified things but in this case it seems to be a big expensive step above what is required ie a modern simple WHS machine.

Windows Server 2012 for sure, if you know how to admin it. It's the best option.

Buy a $180 Shuttle, throw Core i3 and 8 GB RAM and a small SSD in it, and install Server 2012. Add big slow HDs for your data as needed.

This.

Can you guys get into why this is better than Windows 8? That's a big price jump.

You can get away with windows 8 as a server. Heck, I've been running a windows 7 home server for years. But if you can afford to step it up, you get a lot more flexibility with Windows Server. It gives you more complete control over the domain. I find that things like offering up user folders on the server are easy to do in standard windows, but to limit the folder's size I'd need the Server version. I think Active Directory is also a Server Specific option (but I could be off there).

Additionally, if you're talking about a home server, you're likely going to want decent ram specs. If you don't go Pro on Windows, then you're restricted to less than 16GB of RAM. The Server version, like the Pro Version has much higher ram specifications.

I will admit that Windows Server is a *big* price difference over standard windows. I tend to forget that because I have an MSDN account from my job. I actually mentioned it because you were talking about WHS.

If it's your first home server and you're going to experiment and upgrade it later, go with a standard windows install. IIS can be turned on in Windows Home Premium (lowest I've checked against). IIS = server, so that's all you really need. You will find eventually that you'll want something better though.

This alone is what made many people tun their backs on WHS. Apparently their have been issues with drive pooling and data getting corrupted. I have two HP boxes and never had a problem though.Drivebender is supposed to be a reliable, and better replacement for this though. Anyone have experience of it?

Still running my original WHS as well and never had an issue. I'm in the same boat that if/when my ex470 ever dies I'll probably be looking at Server2012/Storage Server 2012 as a replacement, but really wish HP had kept the line going. The micro servers don't seem to be readily available here in Canada either.

Well, freenas was a project I really was interested in so I built a small lab to try it out about 8 month ago. Overall, it was rather simple to use and configure but I came up across one major issue: if you use ZFS (one of the main reasons to use Freenas), and lose a disk, there is no way to rebuild the volume properly. You cannot do it from the web interface and, if you do it by hand, the web interface gets hopelessly confused and will never let you work with the volume again.

I don't know if it has been fixed or not, but it definitely ruled out using the project for me.

My bad. I didn't remember if that was a part of my site that was secured to specific user groups. Obviously it was.

Much of the pictures are cut off, but I was able to print a copy to XPS.

I also wrote it a long time ago, when I was learning IIS so it may have some unnecessary steps. It sets up IIS, which works fine with most languages by default. I also included setup for PHP and Perl. It also used to have a ruby on rails setup in it, but I never could get it to start up correctly back then and have mostly only used ruby for command line programs since so it was removed. There's some much better rails tutorials out there now if you need rails.

That was looking pretty nice until I read about the File duplication. I was hoping for something a bit more flexible in terms of failure redundancy (like RAID6, or something along those lines) but just duplicating the files themselves doesn't seem like the best solution to offer drive failure redundancy.

That's how the original WHS worked. It might not be the best method but its worked well for me so far.

This. One thing I liked about it is if I removed a drive, the files on it were all still valid, and the system still worked. You can't do that with any RAID configuration. Storage Spaces, assuming the issues I hear about are resolved, seems like a reasonable compromise.

not to nitpick, but I think the difference there is you can attach it to any standard Sata controller and see the NTFS filesystem directly. You can't do that with RAID (at least the server class I've worked with in the past).